What are the Pros and Cons of a Convention of States?

 

IMG_5872-520x346So, it seems we are toast.

This was Ricochet’s overwhelming verdict. The United States is doomed. I admit I took this a bit badly. (I’d always thought it must just be me. I figured a brisk walk, some sunshine, and a stiff drink would set me right. Apparently not.)

There was, however, one response that got my attention. HVTs suggested something I’d never once considered: Using Article V of the Constitution to call a Convention of States:

…. there is a viable way that can turn our ship of state out of the the shoal waters it’s presently navigating.

Fortunately, the Founders foresaw the possibility (some felt it was a likelihood) that concentrating power in a Federal government ran the risk of it becoming a source of oppression every bit as onerous as George III. They left us with a solution as big as the problem: Article V.

Article V, which spells out how to propose and ratify Constitutional amendments, ensures that the States have the means to amend the Constitution without any interference from Washington’s despotic, out-of-control political class. The solution, then, resides with us.

We have all the Constitutional levers we need. We have to stop snivelling, get engaged, stay engaged and demand our State legislators seek the remedies we need through Article V of the Constitution.

Have a look at the website and tell me what you think. I thought it was an interesting idea.

What do you think: Is it worth a shot?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 124 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    The cons to a convention of states is that the Leftist dominated states would attempt to derail any attempts to restore federalism.  Although as they would only get one vote, it might not be that big a deal.  I like the plan.

    • #1
  2. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Robert McReynolds:The cons to a convention of states is that you would have to invite the Leftist dominated states, and they would attempt to derail any attempts to restore federalism.

    So the worst that could happen is that nothing would?

    • #2
  3. Claire Berlinski Member
    Claire Berlinski
    @Claire

    I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    • #3
  4. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Claire, talk radio host Mark Levin has really been a leader in popularizing an Article V convention. (I guess he isn’t broadcast in France)

    He wrote an excellent book on the process with proposed amendments, The Liberty Amendments. 

    • #4
  5. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @LunaticRex

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    Even if it ultimately failed, the states that voted for it would be the states the left already hates anyway for the most part. And flyover country would be excoriated by the media for daring to challenge DC. But we’re used to that. So I’m in. The pluses outweigh any minuses on this one.

    • #5
  6. PsychLynne Inactive
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    I’m intrigued.  First, I’m glad you posted this, as I find Mark Levin’s manner off-putting so was unfamiliar with his work in this area.  Second, it seems like now it the time for this, not just because of the federal power expansion under Obama, but also because of how many state governors and legislatures are Republican.

    • #6
  7. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    There is a downside.

    It is possible for this same convention to end up proposing a totally new – and different – constitution. Recollect that in our own history such a convention was called, to tweek the Articles of Confederation, which worked for most people. But Madison and Hamilton grabbed a quorum and got passed a resolutioin to put off the convention until the following year, at which time they proposed the Virginia Resolution (I believe it was called). While it was rejected, it formed the core of what became our constitution.

    The same is a risk We could end up with a constitution with no, or weak 2nd Amendment, no freedom of religion, and even state power they shouldn’t have (driving is a privilege, licenses for all manner of things, forced compliance with things against one’s conscience – like abortion, etc.) Contemplating actual individual freedom is not high on most people’s radar. They’re all for freedom – until you gore one of their pet ideas.

    • #7
  8. Orion Member
    Orion
    @Orion

    Devereaux:There is a downside.

    It is possible for this same convention to end up proposing a totally new – and different – constitution. Recollect that in our own history such a convention was called, to tweek the Articles of Confederation, which worked for most people. But Madison and Hamilton grabbed a quorum and got passed a resolutioin to put off the convention until the following year, at which time they proposed the Virginia Resolution (I believe it was called). While it was rejected, it formed the core of what became our constitution.

    The same is a risk We could end up with a constitution with no, or weak 2nd Amendment, no freedom of religion, and even state power they shouldn’t have (driving is a privilege, licenses for all manner of things, forced compliance with things against one’s conscience – like abortion, etc.) Contemplating actual individual freedom is not high on most people’s radar. They’re all for freedom – until you gore one of their pet ideas.

    Good point(s)… Be careful what you wish for.

    • #8
  9. Butters Inactive
    Butters
    @CommodoreBTC

    the risk is zero

    Realize that today, Mitch McConnell (or Harry Reid before him) could completely rewrite the Constitution and put it to a vote in the Senate. Even if it passes, it would still need to be ratified by the state legislatures.

    A Convention of States is the exact same thing. Anything it approves has to be ratified by the state legislatures. The only difference is instead of US Senators voting on which amendments get sent to the states, it’s state legislators voting at the convention.

    The advantage of this is that while federal representatives want to keep power in DC, state representatives have no such incentive (or less of one at least).

    Whatever danger exists of a constitutional rewrite already exists today in the US Senate in perpetuity (witness Durbin trying to rewrite the 1st Amendment and getting the entire Dem caucus to go along).

    • #9
  10. lesserson Member
    lesserson
    @LesserSonofBarsham

    Devereaux:There is a downside.

    It is possible for this same convention to end up proposing a totally new – and different – constitution. Recollect that in our own history such a convention was called, to tweek the Articles of Confederation, which worked for most people. But Madison and Hamilton grabbed a quorum and got passed a resolutioin to put off the convention until the following year, at which time they proposed the Virginia Resolution (I believe it was called). While it was rejected, it formed the core of what became our constitution.

    The same is a risk We could end up with a constitution with no, or weak 2nd Amendment, no freedom of religion, and even state power they shouldn’t have (driving is a privilege, licenses for all manner of things, forced compliance with things against one’s conscience – like abortion, etc.) Contemplating actual individual freedom is not high on most people’s radar. They’re all for freedom – until you gore one of their pet ideas.

    That is a danger, though the safeguard on this one I think is that there are enough States that wouldn’t ratify those changes and nothing happens (like with our proposed changes). There is a chance that it’s packaged in a way that is hard not to ratify it in our current political environment, so there is definitely some risk.

    • #10
  11. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Commodore BTC:the risk is zero

    Realize that today, Mitch McConnell (or Harry Reid before him) could completely rewrite the Constitution and put it to a vote in the Senate. Even if it passes, it would still need to be ratified by the state legislatures.

    A Convention of States is the exact same thing. Anything it approves has to be ratified by the state legislatures. The only difference is instead of US Senators voting on which amendments get sent to the states, it’s state legislators voting at the convention.

    The advantage of this is that while federal politicians want to keep power in DC, state politicians have no such incentive (or less of one at least).

    Sorry. Don’t agree. Any time you get modern lawyers involved there is a risk. Look at how concise the constitution is. ?Think anyone today (of the lawyer model) could, or would, write something like that.

    • #11
  12. Butters Inactive
    Butters
    @CommodoreBTC

    Devereaux:

    Sorry. Don’t agree. Any time you get modern lawyers involved there is a risk. Look at how concise the constitution is. ?Think anyone today (of the lawyer model) could, or would, write something like that.

    No, but this is an amendments convention, not a constitutional convention.

    To oppose a Convention of States is to oppose the concept of amendments in general, because that same power already exists right now in the US Senate.

    • #12
  13. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    No, the worst that could happen is that the Constitution could be rewritten.

    America has the finest Constitution in the world.  The idea that only good things happen if we create a process to implement changes to it without having any idea what those changes will be seems hard for me to comprehend.

    In particular, the most likely outcome of any such convention would appear to be a Citizens United amendment that would see campaign finance laws sharply limiting the influence of donors that are not unions. There are all kinds of other nightmares we’d be unleashing, though.

    To those of us that love the Constitution, the casual trashing of the document by nominal conservatives is hard to fathom. People say that it’s meaningless, but it provides America with much of its institutional shape. There are gun rights in Chicago now, which save lives, and in DC. Nuns aren’t forced to buy abortifacients. States cannot be compelled to sign up for Obamacare. There are limits to the punitive damages that John Edwards and his ilk can extract from juries against American companies. Campaign finance laws are sharply limited.

    The Constitution is about as powerful a conservative document now as it has ever been, particularly in the last 80 years. Treating it as worthless is….

    I don’t even have words for it.

    • #13
  14. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Devereaux:There is a downside.

    (I’m pasting in a response I made in another thread ‘cuz it addresses the same points.)

    This is a commonly held but utterly false rendering of 1787. It’s the myth of a so-called “runaway convention.” We address this falsehood here.

    It didn’t happen then and it can’t happen now. But that’s a longer discussion than this venue permits. Perhaps another time.  In the meantime, let’s presume for sake of argument you are correct and that a Convention of States does ‘runaway’.  There’s two things that proponents of this notion fail to grasp:

    (1) Ratification.  The Convention can only propose amendments; then 2/3rds (38) states must separately ratify anything proposed.  Stated differently, one house of just 13 state governments can block anything that comes up for ratification.

    (2) We have a runaway federal government right now. To use but one example: the debt has doubled since 2000. Twice. Once under GOP administration, again under Dems.  It’s growing today at about $1M a minute. That’s only what’s admitted to. To fret over a runaway convention is to implicitly believe the status quo is less dangerous than meaningful change. WRONG!

    • #14
  15. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Commodore BTC:

    Devereaux:

    Sorry. Don’t agree. Any time you get modern lawyers involved there is a risk. Look at how concise the constitution is. ?Think anyone today (of the lawyer model) could, or would, write something like that.

    No, but this is an amendments convention, not a constitutional convention.

    To oppose a Convention of States is to oppose the concept of amendments in general, because that same power already exists right now in the US Senate.

    I don’t oppose the concept of amendments; I like most of those that have been passed and think that it was extremely important that there was a mechanism by which they could have been passed.

    If an Amendment comes up with a plausible chance of success that I think would clearly improve America, I’ll cheerfully and enthusiastically support it.

    Saying that we have to support the idea of change generally, though, if we support the existence of Article V, is like saying that if we support surgery we have to approve of all cuttings of patients. If I believe surgery will help someone, I’ll support it, but if I’m told that someone is sick that doesn’t mean I’ll be keen to have them randomly sliced in the hope that this improves them, with an equal chance that the slicing will be done by someone with a little training in western medicine and that the slicing will be done by a student of Galen’s, wanting to attack vital organs to siphon off the bile.

    • #15
  16. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    billy:

    Robert McReynolds:The cons to a convention of states is that you would have to invite the Leftist dominated states, and they would attempt to derail any attempts to restore federalism.

    So the worst that could happen is that nothing would?

    No that is not the worst that could happen, not even close.  We could end up with a Constitution that eliminates; freedom of religion (think about the reaction to RFRA in Indiana),  free speech (some sort of national speech code like we currently have on most college campuses), and who knows what else.

    The video says a run away convention is unlikely. I wonder.  The media attention will be greater than an election.  Big money will be spent to sway public opinion.  The results are not predictable.   It is a high risk venture.

    If we open up the Constitution very bad things might happen.   I say leave it as it is.  There is nothing wrong with it.  The problem is it is not read and enforced.

    • #16
  17. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    James Of England:

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    No, the worst that could happen is that the Constitution could be rewritten.

    America has the finest Constitution in the world. The idea that only good things happen if we create a process to implement changes to it without having any idea what those changes will be seems hard for me to comprehend.

    That’s not how it works.  The States define the purposes of the amendments that can be proposed.  It’s not open-ended.  The resolution being worked on in three dozen states (plus three that have passed it already) calls for (1) fiscal restraints on the Federal government; (2) reducing the power and jurisdiction of the Federal government (think, inter alia, Commerce Clause); (3) term limits on Federal officials and members of Congress.  Any proposed amendments from the Convention of States must do one of those three things or will be ruled out of order.

    • #17
  18. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    I don’t see how it’s likely to do much harm; it could do a lot of good.  I’m game.

    What about the meaning of the Constitution?  The new original meaning would be written by the convention.  Unless we replace a bundle of federal judges (and, perhaps, a bundle of big law schools), wouldn’t original meaning be as ignored then as it is now?

    Maybe a short amendment proclaiming a generic formulation of originalism would be a good idea to head off this problem.  If that works, I’m extra game.

    The convention would also have to restore a balance of powers and restrict legislative power to the legislative branch.  If that can be done, I’m double-extra game.

    • #18
  19. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    James Of England:

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    No, the worst that could happen is that the Constitution could be rewritten.

    America has the finest Constitution in the world. The idea that only good things happen if we create a process to implement changes to it without having any idea what those changes will be seems hard for me to comprehend.

    Any proposed changes to the Constitution could be blocked by only 14 states. Don’t you think an amendment that repealed the 2nd Amendment, for instance, would rejected by at least 14 states?

    Whereas, an amendment setting Congressional  term limits might cross the 37 state threshold.

    • #19
  20. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    HVT #14 – This all sounds good – until you factor in leftists, who control the media, unions, who control a lot of politicians, and MONEY, which has an inordinate effect on legislators.

    It is not for nothing that the head of GM once famously claimed that “What is good for GM is good for America.” I am all for competition; I am very against the government tilting the field. But the lure of Big Money can be overwhelming – especially to politicians, who view their “careers” as their way of getting rich.

    • #20
  21. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Pony Convertible:

    billy:

    So the worst that could happen is that nothing would?

    No that is not the worst that could happen, not even close. We could end up with a Constitution that eliminates; freedom of religion (think about the reaction to RFRA in Indiana), free speech (some sort of national speech code like we currently have on most college campuses), and who knows what else.

    The video says a run away convention is unlikely. I wonder. The media attention will be greater than an election. Big money will be spent to sway public opinion. The results are not predictable. It is a high risk venture.

    If we open up the Constitution very bad things might happen. I say leave it as it is. There is nothing wrong with it. The problem is it is not read and enforced.

    We have amended the Constitution 27 times already. Is there some reason that number is frozen and Constitution  is never to be amended again?

    A Convention of States can only propose amendments not enact them, and certainly lacks the power to “rewrite” the Constitution.

    The Framers gave the  same amending power to the States that they gave to Congress, and they did it to deal with exactly the situation we are now in: a Federal Government has grown so out of control that it is a threat to liberty.

    • #21
  22. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    HVTs:

    Devereaux:There is a downside.

    (I’m pasting in a response I made in another thread ‘cuz it addresses the same points.)

    This is a commonly held but utterly false rendering of 1787. It’s the myth of a so-called “runaway convention.” We address this falsehood here.

    It didn’t happen then and it can’t happen now. But that’s a longer discussion than this venue permits. Perhaps another time.  In the meantime, let’s presume for sake of argument you are correct and that a Convention of States does ‘runaway’.  There’s two things that proponents of this notion fail to grasp:

    (1) Ratification.  The Convention can only propose amendments; then 2/3rds (38) states must separately ratify anything proposed.  Stated differently, one house of just 13 state governments can block anything that comes up for ratification.

    You’re right that the Convention isn’t enough by itself to get terrible Amendments passed. We would merely be taking a step toward destruction, rather than going the whole way. Still, in giving bipartisan support to the idea that we should hack away at our founding documents, as well as in getting the process over the first and, for a Citizens United amendment, the highest, hurdle, we would be taking significant steps and greatly assist those who wish to fundamentally transform our country.

    (2) We have a runaway federal government right now. To use but one example: the debt has doubled since 2000. Twice. Once under GOP administration, again under Dems.  It’s growing today at about $1M a minute. That’s only what’s admitted to. To fret over a runaway convention is to implicitly believe the status quo is less dangerous than meaningful change. WRONG!

    Aside from, obviously, the use of all caps for emphasis being against the CoC, the best way to cut the budget is to cut the budget. The previous three times we had massive spikes in debt (Wilson, FDR, Reagan), we responded by cutting budgets. That worked to varying degrees (Bush 41 and Harding were both superior to Truman and Ike at this, but FDR was succeeded by a series of budget cutters, whereas Bush and Harding/ Coolidge had less good luck (Clinton got a decent OBRA in 1993, but after that debt progress mostly stopped; the GOP Congress was good at other things, like Welfare Reform and such, but they always wanted headlines like the DofEd ending, rather than actual, numerical, budget cuts).

    The debt is absolutely a problem. We should work hard at that problem by electing people who have been good at cutting budgets and not being too distracted by passing fads. Most of the governors running for 2016 have excellent records on this, Rubio seems keen. There’s every chance that we can shed the excess weight through diet and exercise. Putting that off because the knife offers an effortless get thin quick solution rarely leads to success.

    • #22
  23. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    There already is a group of people working on organizing an Article V Convention of States. They have a website where many of the questions raised in the posts are addressed. It’s worth a visit:

    http://www.conventionofstates.com/

    In addition to Mark Levin another driving participant is Michael Farris. Farris’s name is not as well known in conservative circles as it perhaps should be. Probably because he focuses on getting things done vs. talking about them. He founded the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College.

    It would be great to get Farris on the main podcast to discuss this.

    I don’t think the odds of this coming off successfully are very good, but I wouldn’t bet against Farris either.

    • #23
  24. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    billy:

    James Of England:

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    No, the worst that could happen is that the Constitution could be rewritten.

    America has the finest Constitution in the world. The idea that only good things happen if we create a process to implement changes to it without having any idea what those changes will be seems hard for me to comprehend.

    Any proposed changes to the Constitution could be blocked by only 14 states. Don’t you think an amendment that reaped the 2nd Amendment, for instance, would nejected by at least 14 states?

    Whereas, an amendment setting Congressional term limits might cross the 37 state threshold.

    You’ll note that I didn’t include that as a likely threat. I think that there have been times when it would have been a threat (the late 1980s/ early 1990s, when it could have had Reagan’s backing, for instance). I think that a Citizens United Amendment could pass 37 states.

    I think it’s eccentric to say that we have an absolute emergency with the debt, so we should focus on term limits, when term limits are not demonstrably helpful in limiting the debt (indeed, they seem likely as not to be unhelpful, since experience in defeating the self-promoting schemes of bureaucrats and lobbyists seems like an asset; there have always been freshmen in Congress who’ve liked the idea of pet project spending).

    • #24
  25. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    James, the nation’s underlying problems are not the debt, or entitlements, or a a hideous tax code.

    It is that too much wealth and power is concentrated in Washington D,C. Expecting politicians and bureaucrats to yield that power is unrealistic. It is not human nature to do so.

    They must be forced to do so. Outside of armed insurrection or secession, this is the only way.

    • #25
  26. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    If I recall correctly, Levin was a guest on the Ricochet podcast talking about this very idea. Is it still in the archives?

    *

    Found it- July 10, 2914

    • #26
  27. Claire Berlinski Member
    Claire Berlinski
    @Claire

    billy:If I recall correctly, Levin was a guest on the Ricochet podcast talking about this very idea. Is it still in the archives?

    I don’t remember, but I’ll ask. Does anyone else remember?

    • #27
  28. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    HVTs:

    James Of England:

    Claire Berlinski:I’m intrigued by the idea, and I agree that the worst thing that could happen is nothing.

    No, the worst that could happen is that the Constitution could be rewritten.

    America has the finest Constitution in the world. The idea that only good things happen if we create a process to implement changes to it without having any idea what those changes will be seems hard for me to comprehend.

    That’s not how it works. The States define the purposes of the amendments that can be proposed. It’s not open-ended. The resolution being worked on in three dozen states (plus three that have passed it already) calls for (1) fiscal restraints on the Federal government; (2) reducing the power and jurisdiction of the Federal government (think, inter alia, Commerce Clause); (3) term limits on Federal officials and members of Congress. Any proposed amendments from the Convention of States must do one of those three things or will be ruled out of order.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,”

    I don’t see any language in there that legitimates the limits set on the convention. It seems clear to me that a convention called under those circumstances could, and would, pass a Citizens United amendment before it passed anything else.  We can add whatever language we want onto the invitation, but we can’t act like our signing statements constitute Constitutional Amendments themselves.

    • #28
  29. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @KermitHoffpauir

    The only people who I’ve heard supporting this idea are all nutters who buy into every yeehaw of the far right yeehawers such as Levin.  The impression left on me by most of the supporters is that I don’t need to investigate whether or not it is doable.  They seem to be mostly the left behind Johnny Come Lately Tea Party types, real tin foil hat wearers, at least locally.

    BTW, Levin is 180 degrees from actual conservative candidates with support/endorsement here in Louisiana.  I take his opinions with a grain of salt.

    • #29
  30. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    billy:If I recall correctly, Levin was a guest on the Ricochet podcast talking about this very idea. Is it still in the archives?

    *

    Found it- July 10, 2914

    You mean we have to wait 900 years for it?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.